Let's aim for a diverse range of questions rather than just those focusing on DSLRs/current products.

Ask them, if they plan to Leave the Indian market and stop selling their products in India. (Pentax cameras, Ricoh printers etc.) Since their Indian subsidiary will be liquidated soon, and their shares are not listed in the Mumbai stock exchange anymore. What is their plan for the Indian market and all the Indian customers?

Ask them about Monochrome's theory that they do not market more aggressively because they do not want to sell more units. He suggests that they do not have the capacity for greater production and do not want to invest in increasing that capacity. Monochrome is a savvy guy so I, for one, wonder if he may not be on to something.

This is an excellent question. Pentax does not have do do a lot of marketing - well, they aren't going to do that anyway. A one or two page whitepaper explaining how the images are going to come out better. They don't need to give away their secret sauce, but help us out as photographers trying to get better images under some extreme conditions. Initially, in reading the K1mkII overview, it appears that the acceleration chip worked on the very high ISO. Then digging some more, it comes out that it works on low to moderate ISO values (which is what I'm interested in). Looking at the KP (which has the accelerator chip) on astro images it appears to do pretty well and not like Sony's famous "star eater" upgrade. There is precious little information on the acceleration chip from Pentax.

Bottom line is that some explanations here would really help folks to decide on the upgrade option and to actually sell more cameras.

Let’s take this idea a step further. In the small user guides for film cameras going back to the 60’s, ‘How-To’ instructions demonstrated proper uses of an SLR, focusing, exposure - even holding the camera.

Given that part of the Pentax brand identity is design cues reflecting legacy cameras and the historical dedication to optical innovation - reaching back to those simpler user guides as an example - should Pentax create, in an organized, intentional and thoughtful fashion, a series of white papers describing optimizing settings for various stylers of image capture; to optimize autofocus (especially tracking / AF.C) given Pentax’s unique AF logic; technical instruction on optimal use of the AstroTracer function (IOW, how to capture and process Astro images); principles of how to compose, light and capture landscape images; and so on.

Can such White Papers be published with illustrations on a special site such as the K-1 Special Site?

Can instruction* - especially on optimizing the benefits of Pentax unique features and logic - become a brand differentiator for Pentax?

Let’s take this idea a step further. In the small user guides for film cameras going back to the 60’s, ‘How-To’ instructions demonstrated proper uses of an SLR, focusing, exposure - even holding the camera.

Given that part of the Pentax brand Lauren is design cues reflecting legacy cameras and the historical dedication to optical innovation - reexhing back to those simpler user guides as an example - should Pentax create, in an organized, intentional and thoughtful fashion, a series of white papers describing optimizing settings for various stylers of image capture; to optimize autofocus (especially tracking /AF.C) given Pentax’s unique AF logic; technical instruction on optimal use of the AstroTracer function (IOW, how to capture and process Astro images; principles of how to compose, light and capture landscape images; and so on.

Can such White Papers be published with illustrations on a special site such as the K-1 Special Site?

Can instruction* - especially on optimizing the benefits of Pentax unique features and logic - become a brand differentiator for Pentax?

* probably transfers well to a YouTube channel

Yes, that would absolutely work. I like it!!! It would also solve several problems simultaneously that I see Pentax is having....

This approach would provide a new type of access to the market - especially new photographers. It would introduce Pentax to them, without actually engaging in "marketing", so to speak.

As you stated, it would become a brand "differentiator".

It would engage users / photographers on Pentax's terms and turf. For instance it has been said that - Pentax has lousy AF, or insufficient glass. It would turn the conversation inside out - and introduce AF as Pentax views AF - and why it works. I've often posted in a few places that when you take shake reduction or IBIS into account, the large difference in lens libraries is substantially reduced.

Rather than just being different, it would provide a forum for why being different actually provides you with what you really want to use.

Whitepapers could be published in any number of formats - say a "Pentax Vision" website, or whatever. (Pentax Focus, Pentax Perception, Pentax Alternative, Pentax Opportunity, Pentax Advantage, Pentax Philosophy, Pentax Opinion, etc. .... ), that could transcend any single body and be across the Pentax range of bodies - since they all embody the Pentax Concept - the Pentax Difference.

I really do like the clear, clean, simple - easy to grasp, single concept paper, oriented to helping photographers. Take astrophotography for instance. Down in the astro social group, there are about a dozen or so users that have images that equal any image taken with any other camera brand - using K30, K50, K5, K3's etc. The imagery is breathtaking. There is real hidden talent here on the PF. The paper does not have to tout Pentax, but a very soft sell can be very effective.

A selected set of topics, with Pentax engineers - not delving into the engineering, but helping to explain how to use the capabilities that are in your hands, along with some interesting related photography.

Pentax would not see any instant "viral" acceptance, but a steady output of articles, over time should win a good following and win additional readership or viewership.... essentially all the elements of guerilla marketing. And it should not be expensive. The key here is to get the internal Pentax engineering insight in terms of supporting the photography of the user.
____________________________________

High Definition Imagery - Pixel Shift advantages and how to excel with the technology.

Perspective Correction - in camera sensor shift assists with on the fly perspective correction across any lens.....

Manual Controls vs Menu Items - .....

The philosophy of the Limited lenses - .....

The philosophy of the * lenses - .....

The philosophy of Pentax's JPG engine - a lot of criticism has been heaped on the JPG engine, where other brands tweak and fine tune the out of the camera images to be ready for the reviewers (and to receive their praise and high recommendations), as opposed to the users using the controls to customize the JPG output to what they want, etc. .....

Dual control wheels -

TAv mode -

Focus Peaking -

etc., etc., etc.

.... and any other topic "de jure" that Pentax engineers want to convey their opinions, philosophy and perspectives on. The list is nearly endless.

The statement that a quieter lens motor design only benefits videographers is laughable. Think of all those wedding and wildlife togs.

This thread is for question suggestions, and I don't want to derail the thread at all, so I'll just make a quick reply here to the above comment that was directed towards me, and try to refrain from engaging any farther with this.

In my post I said, "…developing a motor that is even quieter than the DC is only going to be a practical benefit to video".

The DC motor is already low noise, you are not in danger of spooking the wildlife with the noise that is created from the DC, nor are you in danger of disturbing the guests at a wedding, (unless for some reason there's a void of ambient noise). I've shot wildlife and wedding and my experience with the DC motor, as far as I am concerned, does not produce enough noise to be a practical concern in regards to shooting wild life or weddings.

Going from a lower noise motor like the DC, to a virtually silent motor like the PLM, is however a huge benefit to videographers, as even the noise from the DC motor is enough to be picked up with mics that are mounted directly to the camera or are internally integrated.

It's possible that you could bother guests, with the sounds of your DC lens focusing, or spook wildlife, however I believe most people that are familiar with the noise levels that are created by the DC motor would agree that these would be rare occurrences/conditions, therefore I will stick with my original sentiment that the practical benefit of developing a quieter motor than the DC, like the PLM, is of only real practical benefit to videographers.

I would agree that quieter is nicer for photographers, but as for actual practical concern the difference between the DC and PLM, is really only going to be felt indispensable by, (mostly amateur) videographers, rather than the overwhelming majority of photographers.

I did not go through the whole thread so someone might have suggested this already regarding Pixel Shift II. It states that for Dynamic Pixel Shift mode, "the captured images may not be properly synthesized with certain subjects or under certain conditions. By capturing images in the RAW or RAW+ format, the user can process the images unsuitable for the synthesizing process as normal RAW-format images within the camera body. The images may not be properly synthesized in a composite image."

Will the user also have access to these images outside the camera body?

On the videographer side of things when setting fps why isn't shutter speed also set? The basic principle of videography is the shutter speed is twice the fps i.e. 24fps 1/48s, 25fps 1/50s, 30fps 1/60s etc. If you deviate from these standards the movement in the video will not look normal during play back. So why not just automatically set the shutter speed needed for each corresponding fps. This would help clear up the problem when switching from stills to video were the settings have to be completely changed back and forth every time.

+1 Sums me up perfectly.
Could reference the current Pentax Survey too, in that it's really clear users are wanting to purchase the top end cameras, both APS-C and FF, much more than the mid tier ones.

Well, going off-topic a bit here, but fwiw, if my K-3 were to croak tomorrow, the Pentax camera I'd be most likely to buy is the K-70. I think Ricoh did a really good job with that model, offering 14 bit RAWs, pixelshift, articulated screen, and decent buffer & FPS for the price. It's a very solid package. With the price of the KP coming down (at least in Canada) lately, the appeal of that camera is also increasing a bit, IMHO. There are just decisions that were made spec-wise on the KP that are hard to understand, given that within Ricoh they must have known that they weren't planning another top-end APS-C body for a long while. It's not like reducing the buffer on KP (vrs K-3ii) is likely to push people towards the K-1 (or K-1ii now), given the K-1's even more limited buffer & fps...

Ask them, if they plan to Leave the Indian market and stop selling their products in India. (Pentax cameras, Ricoh printers etc.) Since their Indian subsidiary will be liquidated soon, and their shares are not listed in the Mumbai stock exchange anymore. What is their plan for the Indian market and all the Indian customers?

They said Pentax cameras will continue being available in India. I have no idea what Ricoh corp will do, but Ricoh Imaging will apparently continue.

if my K-3 were to croak tomorrow, the Pentax camera I'd be most likely to buy is the K-70

yes I have wondered about this, I think for me the KP would be my choice, even though I prefer articulated screens ie. K-70, I like the size of the KP and features, may even get one anyway, but ultimately a K-3II successor.